Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
Yes, new time buyers are a bit overwhelmed with all of the stuff involved in buying their first home. I'm not looking for the reveal on my one bedroom condo, but I know that I pay very little.
I bought another unit in the same neighborhood and the agent listed the real estate taxes for half of what it actually was. I caught it and I got a reduction in the sale price. I did the leg work to appeal the assessment value this Feb and it was the best investment ($5 that saved me $1,200). Will see how the reval goes with the new property. Best of luck everyone!
Posted on: 2012/8/10 2:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Actually, you can't blame the bank for this one. The bank can only look at a particular property's past history of tax payments for making escrow assumptions. It really doesn't have a way of knowing about a conversion or what the city is likely to assess in value in a conversion. In your case, I'd say the fault lies equally with the developer and the prospective buyer. Lemme guess, this was your first home, and you were bowled over by the exposed brick, skylights and quaint layout that you barely gave a moment's thought to property tax, or failed to consider that the top floor of an ancient building might be plagued by chronic leaks. (How are the leaks over there, btw?). As I said on another thread, the first home is always an eye-opening, HUGE learning experience - been there, done that myself. Unfortunately, developers count on the naivete of virgin home buyers. That having been said, your realtor and lawyer should've stepped in and made sure you were aware that the tax would jump sharply in a conversion. I accompanied some friends when they were looking at Dixon Mills two years ago, and when the question of taxes came up, the sales agent kind of downplayed what the likely property tax would be. He didn't outright say that new buyers would pay the same tax as the developer (that would be lying), but he certainly didn't dissuade people if they had that mistaken notion. Since I knew it was a condo conversion, I pressed him on the issue, and he proceeded to quickly spew out some mathematical formula that the city uses without really saying what the taxes would likely be if you paid X amount on the home. After the tour, I advised my friends that if they really wanted an accurate idea of what the tax was likely to be, they should visit the Tax Assessor's office in City Hall. The people there are very nice and helpful. In contrast to Dixon Mills, I went with my cousin to the sales office at Grove Pointe when it was going up. The sales agent there was really upfront about how the taxes would be set and explained it clearly. He said we were the first people to ask about the property tax in over a month - and he was astounded that more people didn't ask, especially considering how high property taxes are in NJ.
Posted on: 2012/8/9 20:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Actually, in this case I believe your attorney and broker, not the city, are probably the villains. From what Jaded said of the conversion, the professionals should have known there that the taxes on your unit were going to be normalized. Your current taxes are right on the money (so to speak) to where they should be, about 2% of value, vs Yvonne who was half that and many like myself who are north of 3%. It's funny, for all Yvonne's breast-beating for the people who taxes rose in the last reval, there's no empathy for all the less affluent people, particularly in the other wards, who have been paying 2 & 3 times the tax rate of her and her neighbors. Ian: That's not fair. We hire lawyers to protect us in these deals, which can get insanely complicated. Not everyone is up to doing their own due diligence, even millionaires just hire lawyers. That a lawyer takes your money and leaves you exposed...well, don't get me started about lawyers!! I know someone who sold a business, and was successfully sued by the buyer after the buyer ran it into the ground. He then sued his contract attorney for leaving him exposed to such a suit, and LOST! They protect their own.
Posted on: 2012/8/9 17:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Wow.
The willingness of people to drop hundreds of thousands of dollars just so they can own property without ever doing their due diligence astounds me. Just, wow.
Posted on: 2012/8/9 16:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Everything you said is correct, My terminology was incorrect in a sense that the conversion created an increase in taxes.
That was my "reval" I sure dont expect to see another 194% increase in my taxes. However, I guess the point of the story is that wells fargo failed to tell the purchasers that there was going to be tax increases, and mislead people back in 2008. for anybody looking to buy now, make sure the bank is evaluating what the taxes WILL be not what they are pre assement. Lastly, i dont have a problem with my taxes going up, I have a problem with them going up 194% the city should be ashamed of themselves, its their responsibilty to have taxes increases or decrease in a marginal trend. They as a municipality screwed up with not maintaing the valuations and now they are springing this massive tax on everyone. SHAME ON THEM! I was a lucky one that had the extra capital for an 194% increase, But there are alot of new people in this town that dont. Just a disclaimer for all those looking to move to the city. the taxes are comparable and reasonable. if you are buying here now just make sure the bank puts the right tax number in. I and a few hundred other people fall into a bracket of purchasers back in 2008. Im out..
Posted on: 2012/8/9 15:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Zillow doesn't show reval info. As Brewster said, the reval is in process and no one's assessed value has been reset yet as a result. You live in Dixon Mills, and what you're actually talking about is a condo conversion. What many people fail to understand in a condo conversion of an older building like that is that new condo owners will pay much higher taxes than what the previous owner paid when the building was a rental. Basically, the city will assess the value based on the purchase price of your unit and treat it as though it was new construction. People who consider buying in Dixon Mills directly from the developer can't base their tax estimate on what the developer was paying. Also, in 2008-10, EVERYONE's escrow got seriously depleted because the city jacked up the tax rate big time (the assessment stayed the same, but the tax rate went up). I remember after one double-digit tax hike, I had something like $200 left in escrow and had to have Wells Fargo do a new analysis that resulted in $300+ in my monthly payment. Because you bought in 2008-09, which was pretty much the peak of the market, you'll either see little change or even a slight decrease in your assessed value after the reval - provided it's done correctly. As I and many others here have said repeatedly, the reval is aimed at bringing fairness back into a highly distorted system. Many, like Yvonne, were paying disproportionately lower taxes because their homes are being taxed based on their 1987 values. In your case, your taxes are based on a 2008-09 value of your home.
Posted on: 2012/8/9 15:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
I have been paying the new taxes for 2.5 years!!!!
Posted on: 2012/8/9 13:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
the property was revaled twice acctualy.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/187 ... y-NJ-07302/88857070_zpid/ please dont stalk me ;)
Posted on: 2012/8/9 13:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Exactly,
In 2008 my wife and I negotiated a lease with wells fargo to purchase a home for 370,000. After 1 year of living in the place with a mortgage of 2300 and 3,000 in taxes we were told by wells fargo that our escrow account was completely depleted and that we would need to put more money in it. If i recall correctly we put like 7000 back in. If you reference the attached link, not to blow my cover, but who cares im not so active, you will see that my taxes went up 194% from 2574 to 7566 between 2010 and 2011. My taxes are paid through our mortgage, as a result of this reval my mortgage was increased by roughly 600 dollars/month. So, if you say the reval numbers have not happened yet, they most certainly have for people that have moved in recently. we may be revaled again as part of this process but they seem to be in line with the revised tax expectations. So there, the danger is not the people who have seen their property go up and dont want to pay there ratio in taxes, they can screw themselves. its the people who bought very recently with an expected budget then find out they are getting an INCREASE OF @#%$&*^ 194%!!!!!!
Posted on: 2012/8/9 13:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Umm, the reval hasn't actually happened yet, they're appraising and after that's done they'll set the assessments and the rate. What do you mean you were "revaluated"? They actually changed your assessment out of the blue? I've never heard of that happening, I'd love to know more of what transpired. I also don't follow how it can affect your mortgage, unless you're meaning your payment to the bank including both mortgage & tax escrows.
Posted on: 2012/8/9 5:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
If you can't afford to pay taxes on your property, move to a less expensive property.
Posted on: 2012/8/9 0:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Though you have what seems noble opinions, it is not exactly the way you think.
Taxes go up..they very rarely go down. I have been recently looking to move and have been looking at two adjacent towns. one has significantly higher taxes than the other, and the only reason I can think of is that one is older - therefore the taxes have been increased a few more times. Lastly, The taxes are not high, well maybe a little high, its just the opposite. people's taxes pre Reval are TOO low. The only thing that is rediculous is the interval by which the taxes were revaled...creating an obnoxious tax increase. If they happen on an annual or bi annual increment in minimal amounts then they are easier to swallow. There are plenty of options to keep your home, as stated beofre the only people this screws are people who like me and my family. we moved in RECENTLY with a projected budget and mortgage, then the reval happenned and we have a lot higher mortgage. THAT SUCKS But if you have lived here and have seen your property value increase and are still paying taxes for 1/10 your property value there are plenty of options to keep your home.
Posted on: 2012/8/8 18:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
My $.02 (from someone who is not an expert):
Personally, I think it's ridiculous to force people out of their homes by increasing the tax on their home because the "value" of their home skyrockets. They get taxed /penalized on this "unrealized" gain and have to consider uprooting their lives b/c taxes are becoming too onerous!?!?! Come on. Maybe house went up in value but did they get a better job to pay more taxes? Equalize this....fairness that.....these are pretty words but I think we need to focus on how JC is spending all this damn money and why it needs to constantly increase taxes. Believe me....I want to improve my house and make the neighborhood nicer but am wary of increasing my RE taxes.
Posted on: 2012/8/8 17:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
But then she'd have to address the fact that everyone outside Downtown, and many there, pays disproportionately higher taxes than she did. She accuses abatements and commercial properties, but if she wants to know who hasn't pulled their weight she needs look no further than the mirror and her neighbors. Yeah, I know this is a bit hammering, but Yvonne has made herself a minor public figure for decades on this tax issue, it's not like she's just another Lister with an opinion. This is all easily researched. Just go to Trulia.com and search for recent sales in the city. A map show the listings, and each listing will show the sale price, assessment and taxes. Most of the city the ratio of assessment to price is 2-4x. Yvonne's was 7x.
Posted on: 2012/8/8 16:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
These neighbors were factory workers who bought their home in the 1960s and 1970s. They paid $10,000 for their homes and the taxes after reval were more than they paid for their homes. This is misleading, as you fail to take into account inflation. $10,000 in 1960 equates to almost $40,000 in 1988. $10,000 in 1970 equates to over $30,000 in 1988. At some point in time, I found a database online where I could see the exact taxes paid on my property going back to the early 1990s. It really helped put our current payments in perspective. As much as I continue to have sticker shock on our current payments, it turns out that there has barely been an increase when you take inflation into account. There was an increase, but it was SO much smaller than I initially thought after putting both figures on the same scale. Mind you, I'm certainly not satisfied with what we get for our money or how high our taxes are. But I have a different perspective on our payments than I did a few years ago.
Posted on: 2012/8/8 16:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
+1 And stop blaming homeowners on PILOTs for the tax mess. She consistently and conveniently ignores the fact that they pay a disproportionately higher amount in taxes than she does. Yvonne would rather have Liberty Harbor remain a bunch of empty lots (but on the rolls as a "ratable" generating a fraction of the current tax revenue) instead of thousands of homes paying taxes directly to the city. The real problem isn't the abatements or PILOTs - that's a red herring. Her anger would be better directed at the city's inability to put together a responsible budget and control its spending.
Posted on: 2012/8/8 14:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yvonne, no one with a paid for home "loses" it to a tax hike. That makes no sense. The taxes are not more than 3% of the home's actual value, except in your case of course where they were far lower. You've lost some pages to the story, like maybe they already mortgaged to the max and extracted all that property appreciation? Anyone who can't pay would sell, pay their back taxes and walk away with 90% of the home's value. I believe even if it's seized by the Sheriff for back taxes (the city does not "foreclose", that's what a bank does) they will give you the difference. That's how foreclosure works too. I will believe there were some leveraged properties of absentee landlords in tax arrears seized.
As Ian said, we're supposed to have more revals not less. The stink you helped create the last time made them so gun shy that now we're really messed up in tax inequality 24 year later. We've heard your criticism, what is your solution, other than working the system as you did and making out like a bandit for decades paying a fraction the taxes of the rest of us?
Posted on: 2012/8/8 3:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I imagine some users here live in tax abated buildings which are not ratable, ask the county. Jersey City is down more than $2 billion in ratable because tax abatements are not ratables. In fact, the ratable base went down an additional $46 million since last year according to the info that was given at the budget. The higher the ratable, the lower the tax base. Since abatements are not ratable, it hurts taxpayers and many abatements are paying less to the city than before according the the city budget.
But I want to also respond to Brewser who has a fascination with my tax records but hides behind a phony name. I lived through the reval, I saw neighbors who lost their homes. These neighbors were factory workers who bought their home in the 1960s and 1970s. They paid $10,000 for their homes and the taxes after reval were more than they paid for their homes. I had access to many records because I was part of the Coalition for Fair Taxation. As a volunteer, I went to homes to make sure the information from the city was accurate because the Coalition for Fair Taxation was considering a lawsuit. I meet the people who did lose their homes. I also met a neighbor of one homeowner who told me the owner of a particular property committed suicide after reval. His neighbor lost his wife to cancer the previous year and he didn't want to deal with the anxiety of losing his home. For the record, there was so many foreclosure that Bret Schundler bundle up these properties when he became mayor and sold them as the first "bulk lien" sale. People did not sell they lose their homes, they lost them.
Posted on: 2012/8/8 2:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Abated properties pay more money to the city than non-abated properties. You should learn how the abatement system works before you cry about it. If you were a taxpayer in another town in the county, then maybe you would have something to complain about.
Posted on: 2012/8/8 2:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, the city is doing the revaluation because one is required by law to equalize full and fair values. Revaluation is suppose to occur at regular ten year intervals. The fact that the last assessment was done in 1988 is a sham that has cheated taxpayers of the county as well as many within the city.
Posted on: 2012/8/8 1:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2009/5/15 4:26 Last Login : 2017/12/25 1:59 From here to eternity
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
512
 |
Quote:
Posted on: 2012/8/8 1:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Paying $11k in taxes on that property is a steal, most new owners are paying taxes at a much higher rate, close to full market valuation.
Posted on: 2012/8/7 20:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
They had to put down 30% because you made a bundle! It was a "jumbo" mortgage. And I doubt those people "lost" their homes, they SOLD them if they didn't have the cashflow to pay their taxes. And many of them were simply cashing out on what to them was a remarkable rise in values, 3 and 4 fold from the 70's. If you're on a fixed income and lack cashflow for additional taxes there are alternatives to selling today that weren't available then, like a reverse mortgage, borrowing enough to pay the taxes every year while living in the house. It gets paid off when the house is sold. You've expressed your indignation about the reval so much, but what is your alternative? Should people whose property has increased in value at a higher rate than the city as a whole never have to pay taxes proportional to the value? How is that fair to everyone else? Wanting the process to be done right is inarguable, but challenging the idea that it needs to be done is not. I have a property in the Heights assessed @ $138k and worth $300k paying $9500, only $2k less than your house assessed @ $165k that sold for $1.15M. Please, tell us more about who should be paying their fair share. Folks, the pics of her building interiors are still up, check out the place she claimed was only worth $165k. Even in 1988 that was absurd. http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/283 ... y-NJ-07302/38888854_zpid/
Posted on: 2012/8/7 20:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
I had the same issue.
I moved into my home in 2008 and taxes were roughly 3,000 then I was revaluated and now my taxes are like 7 or 8. My mortgage went up $600 dollars. I understand this could have put us in the poorhouse. that is an example of how this reval is screwing people. BUT and this is a big BUT, if you are one of those people who have seen your property value increase from ~300,000 to ~550,000 and your still paying 2-3,000 in taxes, you need to shut the #%$@ up!!
Posted on: 2012/8/6 18:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It worked because I was able to re-finance my house but I saw many neighbors who lost their homes. Today banks are not giving loans, the person who purchased my home had to put down 30%. Before reval, downtown had a large Hispanic and black population. Many of them lost their homes through reval and many white seniors also lost their homes. Reval lowered the business owners taxes and increased the taxes for homeowners especially downtown.
Posted on: 2012/8/6 18:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Then it appears the system worked, at least for those sophisticated enough to hire lawyers or make their own cases. So, magnificently detailed 4 family houses on VVP were really going for $150-200k in 88? The only house still owned by the same entity from that era sold in 87 for ~$450. If I could dig up transfer records from 88 I'd find most other houses selling for less than half that?
Posted on: 2012/8/6 17:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Everyone on my block appealed. Most were around $300,000 I was the hightest one on the block at $375,000.
Posted on: 2012/8/6 2:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The current assessment is $165k and I made no statement about the 88 assessment other than what I inferred from the tax bill. According to the Times in 89 what you told them was that the $16K was for 4 quarters plus a retroactive 2 quarter surcharge, at an annual rate of $11k. Did you really get them to cut it by 56%? That was money well spent! The houses flanking yours are assessed $165k & $189k, and ALL the dozens of similar houses on the park are similarly assessed between $160-200k, did they all appeal too or were they all just luckier in the reval than you? http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/03/nyr ... tml?pagewanted=all&src=pm "Yvonne Balcer, who saw the taxes on her York Street home rise to $11,000 from $3,180, received a tax bill in July at the start of the 1988 tax year for almost $16,000, retroactive to January when the new values took effect. "
Posted on: 2012/8/6 1:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You are mistaken, my home was assessed at $375,000. The tax bill I received for 4 quarters after reval was close to $16,000. The previous year, I paid $3,000 and the year before that I paid around $2,000. My assessment dropped because I appealed. By the way, there was a property on my block owned by a realtor, this local realtor which I shall not name flipped this property every six months among its partners and that inflated figure was used against my property. At the time of reval in 1988, I was doing a gut rehab. No walls, working bathrooms, etc. To have that figure of $375,000 was ridiculous for 1988. For the record, when reval happens you pay more money into the first two quarters. Then you had to pay two quarters,I paid $10,000 before I appealed. I appealed five years in a row and dropped by assessment, no lawyers were used. Now I believe you pay one quarter.
Posted on: 2012/8/6 0:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hey, I ran across a quote from Yvonne in a 1989 Times article about the last reval. She said her 1988 taxes had jumped to $11k. Guess what her taxes were just before she sold in May: $11,500. According the Consumer Price Index, just by inflation after 24 years her taxes should have been $21,337.77. She was assessed at $165k and sold for $1.16M. Even at the supposed real tax rate of 1.5% of value she was paying 2/3 of what she should, and a fraction of the 3.3% I'm paying on a recently appraised property. And if that doesn't make clear why a reval is needed I don't know what does.
WTF is wrong with this city that she didn't get her taxes raised in 24 years?
Posted on: 2012/8/1 20:01
|
|||
|
||||